EISODON as Welcome in 1 Thessalonians 1:9: A Modest Suggestion in the Light of Historical, Lexical, and Structural Evidence

Seth Brown GRK 6000 Exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 5 December 2012

Introduction 1 Thessalonians 1:9 is a wonderful text for preaching. There are multiple elements in the verse that deserve careful attention and application by all Christians. The stark repentance exhibited by the Thessalonian community is highly commendable. Also, all Christians should mimic the patient eschatological hope shown by these believers. These things deserve time and effort and can serve ministers well as they expound the epistle. Yet, there is a peculiar element of this text that comes to light as one consults the commentaries. It is peculiar in the way the term ei[sodon is interpreted by various scholars. Often, these sorts of issues surface as one peruses different English translations of the text. If some of the translations render a term one way and another portion do not, the exegete usually digs into the commentaries to sort things out; however, with this text one finds an odd situation. The majority of English translations render ei[sodon as reception or welcome while the majority of commentators argue for entry or entrance. This leaves the exegete with a difficult issue. What does this term refer to, welcome or entrance? Who has the best arguments? Where does the evidence lead? These are all questions facing the exegete. The answers affect how one preaches the text. One must either call the Christian to follow Pauls exemplary entrance or the Thessalonian communitys exemplary hospitality. These are two very different exhortations. What follows is a modest suggestion that the historical background of this term, the lexical evidence for the term ei[sodoV, and the structure of the text all coalesce to compel translators and interpreters alike to understand ei[sodon in 1 Thessalonians 1:9 as the welcome or

reception of Paul and his companions by the Thessalonian community. They extended gospelhospitality in the midst of gospel-hostility.

Background/Context One does not have to be a scholar of Greco-Roman history and culture to understand the hostile environment of the first century in which the gospel was first preached. 1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy marched boldly into this environment with the hope of the gospel. They were met by some who accepted them and their message, but they were also met by many who despised it. In such an atmosphere, the hospitality of friends is a treasured commodity. A quick read through Acts 17 shows the scope and nature of the gospel-hostility in the city of Thessalonica. Some Jews in the city incited opposition against Paul and his companions. Not only were the Jews in Thessalonica jealous of Paul and his companions, they also took offense because of their religio-patriotic devotion to Caesar (see Acts 17:5,7). So offended were these men that they rallied others in the city to cast the evangelists out. What would cause such a harsh reaction? Harris notes the religio-political atmosphere of the day by saying, The imperial propaganda portrayed the principate of Augustus as the culmination of Providence [sic] in the universal history of mankind.2 In other words, Caesar is lord and savior. He goes on to say, It would be reasonable to suppose that the conception of rule animating the imperial gospel competed for the loyalty of the Thessalonian citizens with the

1 For a good overview of all aspects of first-century life, see: Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed., (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003). 2 James R. Harrison, Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome, ed. Jrg Frey, (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 63.

same aggressiveness at Thessalonica as elsewhere in the Empire. Paul countered its influence by proclaiming the eschatological hope of the risen and reigning heavenly Lord.3 Paul and his companions were in a context where their proclamation of the gospel was an offensive act of religious blasphemy and political treason. To speak this message was to make enemies. Yet, by the same message, dear friends were made as well. Furthermore, when dangers abound, ones friends become exponentially precious. That is the case in Thessalonica and that is the background for Pauls statement in 1 Thessalonians 1:9. The message of the gospel was sounding forth to the surrounding regions because of the changed lives of the Thessalonian community. They were so changed that people were talking about it. A report even came back about the stark nature of their new lives. The Text of 1 Thess. 1:94 aujtoi; ga;r peri; hJmw:n ajppaggevllousin oJpoivan ei[sodon e[scomen provV uJma:V, kai; pw:V ejpestrevyate pro;V to;n qeo;n ajpo; tw:n eijdwvlwn douleuvein qew:/ zw:nti kai; ajlhqinw:/ Translation For, they were reporting about us the sort of welcome we received among you and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.5

3 Ibid.,

66.

4 The NA27 notes that some manuscripts read e[comen instead of e[scomen. This variant may be resolved by supposing a scribal omission of s. Both the UBS4 and Byzantine text read e[scomen with no notes. 5 It is within the realm of possibility to translate peri; hJmw:n as to us. However, some may take issue with that translation. Yet, Robertson argues on two fronts that such a translation in acceptable. He shows that prepositions do not overpower the noun case. They serve the noun case; thus, one should not let the implications of peri; dominate the translation. Also, Robertson goes on to show how the genitive can be used in such a way that to us is the best translation when he references Matt. 1:12 saying, now the genitive does not mean to, but that is the correct translation of the total idea. In other words, the case of the pronoun and the context of the usage ultimately determine the correct translation. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 5th ed., (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1931), 494,554.

Lexical Analysis oJdovV: The term is used in the NT in both the literal and figurative senses. The literal sense occurs most in the Gospel narratives meaning a way, path, or road. The figurative sense occurs all over the NT; these meanings are discussed below. Due to the wide range of usage, one cannot immediately conclude for or against the literal or figurative use. Interpreters must pay close attention to the context of the term, especially when it occurs with a prepositional prefix, namely, eis-. To begin, Michaelis notes the figurative use when he writes, oJdovV often has the sense way and means to achieve or do something, measure, procedure, or manner of doing something.6 To illustrate the point, the path itself is not the focus; rather, it is the walking that comes into view. That is, the means by which one takes the path is denoted in the figurative sense. This understanding was exaggerated further to refer to a persons way of life as well. The LXX gives some biblical attestation to the figurative sense as it is very common in all parts of the LXX.7 Several places in the LXX refer to kings and judges walking or not walking ejn oJdw:/ of their fathers (cf. 1 Bas. 8:3, etc.). All these instances refer to a persons actions or manner of life. To extend the previous usage of oJdovV, Michaelis notes the synonymous way in which two phrases are used in the LXX, namely, oJdovV euJqei:a and oJdovV dikaiva.8 Here one can see explicit, moral descriptions of personal actions with the use of oJdovV. Keep these uses of the root term oJdovV in mind as one considers the following modification of it.
6 Wilhelm Michaelis, oJdovV, TDNT, vol. V, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, (Grand ! Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967) 43. 7 Ibid., 8 Ibid.,

49. 52.

ei[sodoV: The prefixes eis- and ex- make up the vast majority of modified uses of oJdovV. In speaking of e[xodoV, Michaelis writes, We often find it with ei[sodoV. Thus going out and coming in denote constant fellowship in 1 Bas. 29:6; 2 Par. 16:1.9 In both instances, there is a hostile political situation and the terms are used for fellowship (or, the welcome or reception of others). Once again, the figurative sense is employed. Furthermore, ei[sodoV is never used in the literal sense in the NT. Rather, it refers to access or the ability to enter, not the entrance itself.10 Appropriately, Michaelis employs the two occurrences in 1 Thessalonians to illustrate his point. However, when Michaelis finally speaks of the usage in 1 Thess. 1:9, he draws an odd conclusion. He takes the use of ouj kenh; gevgonen as the only qualitative characteristic of the ei[sodon in 2:1. That means ei[sodon is neutral and does not denote the thought of success.11 It is not clear why Michaelis insists on such a level of conditionality. In other words, why is it that ei[sodon denotes the possibility of access but does not denote access itself? If there is such lexical evidence, Michaelis does not provide it. All that to say, the modern reader would not know that the Thessalonians had granted Paul and others access into their community if it were not for the use of ouj kenh; gevgonen. Now in an odd transition, he imports that supposed denotation (or lack thereof) back into 1:9. By doing so, Michaelis ignores what is written in 1:910, namely, the description of the repentance and patient hope of the Thessalonian believers success. The ei[sodon clearly denotes the thought of success. There is no reason to suppose the use of ei[sodon in 1:9 only denotes the

9 Ibid.,

104. 106.

10 Ibid., 11 Ibid.

possibility of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothys access (welcome) into the Thessalonian community. It seems Michaelis may be avoiding the issue at hand. For, if ei[sodon is neutral then, probably, it refers to the entrance of Paul and his companions. One can enter a city without being welcomed into that city. However, if ei[sodon denotes some thought of success, then it makes sense to understand the term as the welcome of Paul and his companions into the Thessalonian community. In contrast, Louw and Nida reference this very text when they define ei[sodoV as welcome extended to a person on the occasion of a visit, with probable focus on the ready acceptance.12

Structure ga;r aujtoi; peri; hJmw:n ajpaggevllousin oJpoivan ei[sodon e[scomen pro;V uJma:V kai; pw:V ejpestrevyate pro;V to;n qeo;n ajpo; tw:n eijdwvlwn . . . The structure of this passage is also relevant for the issue at hand. It seems the report being made about Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy had two parts. First, the type of welcome they received at Thessalonica was reported. Second, the repentant response of the Thessalonians was reported. It makes sense for the report to center on the actions of the Thessalonian believers, because all the material prior to this verse contains Pauls thankfulness for them and their resounding witness.13 A sudden interjectory note of Pauls entrance into the city would seem out of place at this point.

12 Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, ei[sodoV, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based ! on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed., vol. 1, (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989) 454. 13 Gordon Fee departs from his commentary predecessors (Leon Morris) conclusions about this term in the second edition of the New International Commentary on the New Testament. Gordon D. Fee, First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, NICNT, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009) 45.

Arguments for Entry or Entrance Now, it is beneficial to highlight strengths and weaknesses of the leading arguments for understanding ei[sodoV as referring to Paul, Silvanus, and Timothys entrance into the Thessalonian community. Howard Marshall makes his argument based on the use of ei[sodoV in 1 Thess. 2:1. He claims, The word translated welcome in RSV is translated visit in 2:1, and this meaning should also be adopted here; the stress at this point in the verse is on the conduct of the missionaries rather than on the response of the Thessalonians.14 He goes on to say the focus shifts to the Thessalonians in the second part of the verse. Marshalls appeal to 2:1 is commendable yet somewhat arbitrary. He does not offer similarities or overlaps in the context of each passage to show why they should be understood in the same way. Why is the stress on the missionaries conduct and not the response of the Thessalonians? In fact, the context of 2:1 is precisely the opposite of 1:9. For, in 2:1 Paul is describing the experience of he and his companions in Thessalonica while in 1:9 the focus is on the response of the Thessalonian believers. Morris and Best follow Marshall in his choice but

14 I. Howard Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Matthew Black, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983) 56.

without adequate reasoning.15 Frame simply assumes what kind of visit we paid you, and then about you, how you turned, etc. He does not offer an explanation for his choice either.16

Milligan says the term is used of the act of entering rather than of the means of entering, while the indirect interrogative oJpoivan points to the nature of that entrance, how happy and successful it was.17 While Milligan gets closer to the meaning of the text, he does not fully depart from understanding ei[sodon in the literal sense. He holds on to the literal rendering of ei[sodon while accepting the Thessalonian focus of the passage. His argument actually makes the text harder to understand. Why would Paul interject about a joyful entrance? Was he happy to see them? While that is not a bad thought, he has no evidence to support that understanding.

Arguments for Welcome The evidence mounts for translating ei[sodon as welcome as one first considers the historical background, especially the Acts narrative, then considers the lexical and structural evidence. The historical background for this text shows the importance of fellow believers in the life of Paul and his companions. Without them, Thessalonica was a very dangerous place to be. Donfried notes,
15 Best posits two possible meanings, act of entering and place of entering. He appeals to the use in 2:1 ! for his support. Ernest Best, Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, Harpers New Testament Commentaries, ed. Henry Chadwick, (New York, Harper & Row, 1972) 81. Morris deals with ei[sodon in a footnote. He says the RSV rendering as welcome is not quite right because of the use in 2:1. Leon Morris, First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, NICNT, rev. ed., ed. F. F. Bruce, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991) 52.

Everett Frame, Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, ICC, vol. 38, eds. Driver, Plummer, and Briggs, (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1948) 86.
17 George

16 James

Milligan, St. Pauls Epistles to the Thessalonians, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1952) 13.

In view of this situation we need to ask whether there were elements in the proclamation of Paul and his co-workers in Thessalonica which might have been perceived as so politically inflammatory as to provoke the crisis described in Acts and whether the unusually strong civic cult in the city would have created an environment particularly hostile to early Christian proclamation and language. . . . The apostle was summoning his Gentile converts back to the Jewish roots of their faith which had found its eschatological fulfillment in the house of David and not in the house of the Caesars. Thus a pivotal claim of the early first-century imperial propaganda that Providence would never provide a better Saviour than Augustus increasingly faced challenge at Thessalonica and elsewhere.18 Donfried is correct. The claim, Caesar is lord, was increasingly challenged at Thessalonica by the Christian gospel. As such, this made some people very upset. Thus, Paul and his companions fully relied on the Thessalonian believers. If it were not for the Thessalonian community welcoming them into their lives and homes, Paul and his companions would not only have been in a hostile context but also alone with no protection. The importance of their hospitality was not lost on Paul. He was immensely thankful for their efforts and sought to praise them in 1 Thess. 1 by exulting over the report that was brought back to him. That report included their risky hospitality and stark repentance in the face of hostile surroundings. Also, there are two points to note in the book of Acts that support the welcoming of Paul and his companions by the Thessalonian community. The first is Acts 16:9 where Paul has a vision of a Macedonian man inviting him over to help. Paul was being welcomed to Macedonia before he even travelled there. Due to his vision, Paul probably expected there to be persons ready and willing to receive them. The second supporting point is Acts 17:67. Here we find the uproar among the people of the city where they have attacked the house of Jason attempting to capture Paul and his

18 Karl Paul Donfried, Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2002) 3334.

10

companions. They claimed, These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also and Jason has received them. Once again, an emphasis is placed on the reception of Paul and his companions by the Thessalonian community (namely, Jason). Not only did Jason receive them, but the narrative seems to suggest that Jason hid them and thus protected them from the mob. Before one even approaches the letters to the Thessalonians one would expect Paul to be ready to thank them and praise them for their courageous hospitality. Moving on, the lexical information shows that understanding ei[sodoV as the access Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy enjoyed into the Thessalonian community is acceptable, despite Michaelis unnecessary constraint. Furthermore, the lexical information seems to suggest that a literal understanding of the term is not likely since it appears with that meaning nowhere else in the NT. So, that leads the author to conclude that translating the term in context as reception or welcome is the best rendering because it best accounts for the lexical and structural evidence. It is worth noting that most translations follow this rendering, while most commentators argue against it.19 The KJV, NKJV, and ASV are the only major translations that deviate from the pattern by using entering or entry. The commentators standing against rendering ei[sodon as reception or welcome fail to account for the structural difference their claims make on the text as well. If they are correct, then Paul speaks of a report with two parts, namely, his entrance into the city and the stark repentance of the Thessalonians. In a thanksgiving passage, why would Paul interject about his entrance? The commentators fail to account for this effect of their translation. However, if the

text.

19 The

author is not sure what to make of this division between the translators and the commentators of this

11

text is taken as a focus on the Thessalonians welcome of Paul and his companions, the structure is logical and fits well within the passage.

Conclusion Now that the historical, lexical, and structural evidence for this passage is put forth and the arguments for entry/entrance and those for welcome/reception have been examined, one can determine which interpretation best fits the passage. The issue can be summarized with a few basic questions. First, is ei[sodon referring to the literal entrance of Paul and his companions into the Thessalonian community? If the answer is yes, what is the evidence for that conclusion? The commentators discussed above do not provide compelling evidence for that conclusion though most suppose it to be true. If the answer is no, then it must refer to Pauls access into the community. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that emphasis should be placed on the Thessalonians response and that Pauls access into the community is attributable to their welcoming or receiving him. Moreover, Ellingworth and Nida claim that Pauls deepest concern was not with the way or manner in which they entered the city nor even with the way in which they were received, rather the effect of their gospel-transformation being reported in the surrounding areas was of utmost importance.20 Charles Wanamaker rightly notes, At first sight it is a little surprising that Paul should describe the report as focusing on himself and his colleagues. But the point of the statement concerns their reception by the
20 Paul Ellingworth and Eugene A. Nida, A Handbook on Pauls Letters to the Thessalonians, (New York: United Bible Societies, 1976) 14.

12

Thessalonians. . . . The way in which the Thessalonians had received and responded to the Pauline mission under very trying circumstances had probably become a piece of missionary propaganda used to demonstrate the truth of the Christian message to others.21 Indeed, missionary propaganda it is. This text illustrates the pattern of exemplary characteristics present in the Thessalonian community that should be adopted by all Christians. Paul extols their stark repentance, their patient eschatological hope, and their risky hospitality. For he had no need to tell others about their faith because the news was being blazed abroad almost spontaneously . . . Have you heard what a welcome they received, what a fine band of converts they made?22 It is the hope of the author that, not just two, but all three of these characteristics can be recommended to Christians today based on a solid interpretation of ei[sodon in 1 Thessalonians 1:9.

21 Charles A. Wanamaker, Epistles to the Thessalonians, NIGTC, eds. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1990) 84. 22 F. F. Bruce, Paul and His Converts: Thessalonians and Corinthians, Bible Guides, no. 17, eds. William Barclay and F. F. Bruce, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1965) 27.

Bibliography Best, Ernest. A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. Harpers New Testament Commentaries. Edited by Henry Chadwick. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1972. Bruce, F. F. Paul and His Converts: Thessalonians and Corinthians. Bible Guides. Number 17. Edited by William Barclay and F. F. Bruce. New York: Abingdon Press, 1965. Donfried, Karl Paul. Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2002. Ellingworth, Paul and Eugene A. Nida. A Handbook on Pauls Letters to the Thessalonians. New York: United Bible Societies, 1976. Fee, Gordon. First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, New International Commentary on the New Testament. Second edition. Edited by Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009. Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Third edition. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003. Frame, James Everett. Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians. International Critical Commentary. Edited by Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles Augustus Briggs. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1946. Green, Gene L. Letters to the Thessalonians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Edited by D. A . Carson. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2002. Harrison, James R. Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome: A Study in the Conflict of Ideology. Edited by Jrg Frey. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida. ei[sodoV. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. Second edition. Volume 1. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. 454. Marshall, I. Howard. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. New Century Bible Commentary. Edited by Matthew Black. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1983. Michaelis, Wilhelm. oJdovV. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Volume V. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967.

Milligan, George. St. Pauls Epistles to the Thessalonians. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1952. Morris, Leon. First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Revised edition. Edited by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research. Fifth edition. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1931. Wanamaker, Charles A. Epistles to the Thessalonians. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1990.